The annual finals system debate thread

[Lowdown]

The only thing wrong with the McIntyre system is this: Teams who finish 1st or 2nd and lose in week one, should not be forced to play their next two finals away to lower ranked teams.

The NRL (supposedly) claim to fame is its closeness of its competition 'anyone can win it' blah blah blah.

Therefore, it is in this closeness, where the reward for finishing 26 weeks in 1st or 2nd spot, having one off day (or beaten on the siren), sees you lose any advantage for finishing 1st or 2nd rather than 3rd or 4th.

The difference between the quality of teams finishing 4th - 8th aint that much folks. Look at the Cowboys as prime example. They were one win away from 4th. Manly better hope they get past them this weekend, or else they may very well be travelling to the Warriors next weekend. Where's their reward for finishing second?

 

[gUt]

The only thing wrong with the McIntyre system is this: Teams who finish 1st or 2nd and lose in week one, should not be forced to play their next two finals away to lower ranked teams.

The NRL (supposedly) claim to fame is its closeness of its competition 'anyone can win it' blah blah blah.

Therefore, it is in this closeness, where the reward for finishing 26 weeks in 1st or 2nd spot, having one off day (or beaten on the siren), sees you lose any advantage for finishing 1st or 2nd rather than 3rd or 4th.

The difference between the quality of teams finishing 4th - 8th aint that much folks. Look at the Cowboys as prime example. They were one win away from 4th. Manly better hope they get past them this weekend, or else they may very well be travelling to the Warriors next weekend. Where's their reward for finishing second?

The finals is a new comp. Manly's reward for finishing 2nd in the minor premiership (a different comp to the NRL finals comp) is a home final and a guarantee that they'll be around in week 2 of the new comp. Everything else is up to them.

 

[firechild]

2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009

But when did the best team not make the grand final and at least have a decent crack at wining the premiership? The system can't be blamed for how any team plays on grand final day. You might be able to make an argument for 2005 but that's about it.

 

[stormbati]

Its flawed! 26 bloody weeks to beat 15 teams and lose a game and the odds are against you!

 

[firechild]

The same thing can happen in the AFL system. If manly come 1st and the Bulldogs came 4th they would still play the Bulldogs at ANZ and if Manly lost could easily have to play a team like the Dragons (who came 5th) in the second week at ANZ.

The only way to solve that probably is to have less Sydney clubs which isn't going to happen so they will have to suck up it and except that their home city advantage may not be worth much some times or whinge continually each year which appears to be the Manly option.

You've missed the point completely. If we used the ARL system and Manly (1) played the Bulldogs (4), firstly it is likely it would be played at the SFS. Secondly, the loser is guaranteed a 2nd chance. The top 2 are guaranteed a second chance under both systems but it is more about the fact that 3rd and 4th are not guaranteed a second chance where 5th and 6th have a possible 2nd chance. The most likely outcome is 1 beats 8 and 2 beats 7. That means 5th and to a lesser degree 6th have a shot at losing in week 1 and continuing on. The loser of 4v5 has only been eliminated on 3 occasions. The advantage gained from this is more important than home ground advantage but when you remove both the guarantee AND the home ground advantage, it really makes a difference for teams 3 and 4.
It's funny all the bleating about Manly whinging but idiots like yourself don't stop whinging about Manly. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[mepelthwack]

But when did the best team not make the grand final and at least have a decent crack at wining the premiership? The system can't be blamed for how any team plays on grand final day. You might be able to make an argument for 2005 but that's about it.

05 semis Tigers for 134 against 40. I think the best over the last decade. Arguably the most deserving premiers in the list.

 

[firechild]

05 semis Tigers for 134 against 40. I think the best over the last decade. Arguably the most deserving premiers in the list.

Almost as good as Manly's 110 for, 12 against in 2008. But we're talking about who was the best team for the season, not the best through the finals. Invariably the best team through the finals will always win the GF.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

For those of you complaining about the venues, this has nothing to do with the mcIntyre system. The McIntyre system selects the match ups, the NRL selects the venues.

The system we have is the best, it would be silly to change it. The top 4 should never meet in the first week of the finals, that is ridiculous.

 

[firechild]

It's not specifically the venues. It is the fact that there are 2 distinct advantages for top 4 sides in week 1. A second chance if they lose and a home ground advantage. for teams 3 and 4, the first is not guaranteed and the 2nd has now largely been removed for some teams. Surely the higher ranked team should have some advantage in a week 1 finals match. This year the Tigers have absolutely no advantage over the Dragons. They weren't even allowed to choose which of the allocated finals venues they would play at.

 

[Perth Tiger]

You've missed the point completely. If we used the ARL system and Manly (1) played the Bulldogs (4), firstly it is likely it would be played at the SFS. Secondly, the loser is guaranteed a 2nd chance. The top 2 are guaranteed a second chance under both systems but it is more about the fact that 3rd and 4th are not guaranteed a second chance where 5th and 6th have a possible 2nd chance. The most likely outcome is 1 beats 8 and 2 beats 7. That means 5th and to a lesser degree 6th have a shot at losing in week 1 and continuing on. The loser of 4v5 has only been eliminated on 3 occasions. The advantage gained from this is more important than home ground advantage but when you remove both the guarantee AND the home ground advantage, it really makes a difference for teams 3 and 4.
It's funny all the bleating about Manly whinging but idiots like yourself don't stop whinging about Manly. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

If haven't missed the point, it is just that I have no problem with teams 3 and 4 not being guaranteed a second chance. I like a system that encourages winning and teams can consider themselves lucky to get a second chance if they loss for what is, as I have said, a 4 week tournament, i mean how many times shouyld the Minor Premiers get to lose before they are out of the finals?

And calling me an idiot really hurts, no need to get upset over a difference of opinion. Don't worry princess it is only the interweb

 

[RHCP]

If the Top 2 can't beat the teams that limp into seventh and eighth as the case usually is, they don't deserve another reward. They had their advantage over the lower sides and they blew it.

 

[Perth Tiger]

It's not specifically the venues. It is the fact that there are 2 distinct advantages for top 4 sides in week 1. A second chance if they lose and a home ground advantage. for teams 3 and 4, the first is not guaranteed and the 2nd has now largely been removed for some teams. Surely the higher ranked team should have some advantage in a week 1 finals match. This year the Tigers have absolutely no advantage over the Dragons. They weren't even allowed to choose which of the allocated finals venues they would play at.

Which is something they agreed to at the start of the year

 

[Jason Maher]

If the finals series is a new comp to which the regular season is only vaguely relevant, then why f**king bother having a regular season at all? I presume the people arguing this way despised the final 5 system due to it rewarding teams that did well in regular season, and especially the minor premiers.

 

[firechild]

If the Top 2 can't beat the teams that limp into seventh and eighth as the case usually is, they don't deserve another reward. They had their advantage over the lower sides and they blew it.

I don't think too many people dispute that. And even at a neutral venue they have a pretty big advantage of being ranked no less than 6 places above their rival. The problem for me comes in the lack of advantage teams 3 and 4 get over teams 5 and 6. I never had a problem with it before because the home ground advantage is a pretty big one. Look at the record of the Tigers playing at Leichhardt or the Dragons at Kogarah or Wollongong. An even better example is Manly at Brookvale. Under the ARL system, I don't think home grounds are as important but under the current system it is.

I also don't like the idea that a team can win in week 1 and be "rewarded" by playing a higher ranked team than their week 1 opponent in week 2 while their opponent who lost gets "disadvantaged" by playing a team ranked lower.

 

[Lego_Man]

i don't think too many people dispute that. And even at a neutral venue they have a pretty big advantage of being ranked no less than 6 places above their rival. The problem for me comes in the lack of advantage teams 3 and 4 get over teams 5 and 6. I never had a problem with it before because the home ground advantage is a pretty big one. Look at the record of the tigers playing at leichhardt or the dragons at kogarah or wollongong. An even better example is manly at brookvale. Under the arl system, i don't think home grounds are as important but under the current system it is.

All 16 clubs agreed to change the sydney home finals at the start of the year

 

[firechild]

Which is something they agreed to at the start of the year

They didn't really have a choice. Melbourne, Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra, North Queensland, Gold Coast, New Zealand, Canterbury, Souths and the Roosters had the numbers to get it through anyway. I'm sure on top of that the Tigers would have assumed they would get to choose to play at the SFS if they qualified for a home final. All of those teams gain an advantage out of it if they qualify 5-8 and play Manly, Cronulla, Parramatta, Penrith or St Merge in week 1 of the finals. Turns out the Tigers actually fall into the latter group and are also at a disadvantage.

 

[Jason Maher]

all 16 clubs agreed to change the sydney home finals at the start of the year

I CAN YELL IN BIG LETTERS TOO!!!x

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

But when did the best team not make the grand final and at least have a decent crack at wining the premiership? The system can't be blamed for how any team plays on grand final day. You might be able to make an argument for 2005 but that's about it.

That's besides the point, the best team for those year did not "win the comp" as was asked by that person.

 

[gUt]

If the finals series is a new comp to which the regular season is only vaguely relevant, then why f**king bother having a regular season at all? I presume the people arguing this way despised the final 5 system due to it rewarding teams that did well in regular season, and especially the minor premiers.

Most people I have spoken to, whether they agree with the fumbleball system or our current system, agree that the top 5 is better than both. The NRL aren't going to bring that back so let's forget about it.

We have the regular season to award $100k and a shield to the team who finishes first. After that, the results of the regular season inform the seedings, rankings, advantages and disadvantages of the top 8 sides who then go on to play a new comp we call the finals.

 

[Perth Tiger]

Most people I have spoken to, whether they agree with the fumbleball system or our current system, agree that the top 5 is better than both. The NRL aren't going to bring that back so let's forget about it.

We have the regular season to award $100k and a shield to the team who finishes first. After that, the results of the regular season inform the seedings, rankings, advantages and disadvantages of the top 8 sides who then go on to play a new comp we call the finals.

Exactly, if people want the Minor Premier to win the Grand final or the top 2 teams to play in the grand final then any final system is a waste of time, you might as well have the soccer system of first past the post is the Premier.

Finals are basically a seperate tournament designed to make a shit load of money for the governing body, not to determine the best team (that is what the regular season is for)